Are you being joking? The coddling of “the Black beneficiaries at UMBC” will not stop. Large corporations need people of color. And these are as good as, if not better, than most POC they are going to find.

It is -50. I erred the same as you and quickly thought that there were 52 more steps to go and then you add one (to the negative 52). But that was incorrect figuring (done in under 5 seconds or so).

Starting at n=0 and x = 3.46 – 0.99 * n, you’d get x = -50 when n=54 (which is 5346/99).

http://www.wandtv.com/story/38185783/texas-teen-repeats-to-become-first-2x-winner-of-raytheon-mathcounts-national-competition

Now that I think about it, I figured correctly … just missed the fact that the first of the 52 more steps starts at 0.49 NOT -1.49. So I’d end up with -51 + 1 = -50

Taylor Swift’s fans foresaw this whole “becky” thing back in 2012:

The Korherr Report was written for Himmler in early 1943. There was a “long” report of 16 pages and a “short” summary report of 6-1/2 pages (ostensibly for Hitler). Facsimiles of both can be found here:

https://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korherr/

And both are translated into English at this website:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/korherr.html

This German report on the Jewish population estimated the 1937 European Jewish population to have been about 10.3 million. It estimated that population to have been reduced by about 4.5 million at the time of the report – 4/19/43 for the short report (which was more up to date than the long report). About 2.5 million are interpreted as dead from this report and about 2 million are interpreted as fled to other countries. About 3 million Jews are said to have died from then (early ’43) to the end of the war.

Reinhard Heydrich estimated the European Jewish population of Europe at the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1942 to have been about 11 million at that time.

The very rough breakdown of Jewish deaths during the war is:

1-2 million shot in the East starting in late ’41
1 million died in the Auschwitz camp complex (most slaughtered in Zyklon gas chambers)
– about 10,000 in ’42, about 350,000 in ’43, and about 450,000 in ’44
About 3/4 million slaughtered with CO in Treblinka (7/42 – 8/43)
About 1/2 million slaughtered with CO in Belzec (3/42 – 6/43)
About 1/4 million slaughtered with CO in Sobibor (5/42 – 10/43)
About 1/8 million slaughtered with CO at Chelmno (12/41 – 4/43)

… etc

Altogether about 5-6 million are said to have died during the war. 2-3 million slaughtered in gas chambers, 1-2 million shot in the East, and the rest died in other ways.

Very very few of these deaths have anything to do with the camp labor system – which is where I see many people confused about what the Holocaust is even said to be! There are very few pictures of any slaughtered Jews. There are very few persons with any first hand knowledge of any of the Jewish slaughters. This is where your average person is confused about what is claimed about the Holocaust. And it is where most are confused in their “denial”.

This is quite incorrect – and is one of the main problems with Sanning’s estimates. If you look at the Korherr Report, it estimates the DIRECT HANDLING of 1.5 million “Eastern Provinces” (Polish) Jews in section V.4. So there obviously were at least that many Jews in Poland at the time – together with the large number still in the ghettos (such as Warsaw) at this particular time (1/43). There were about 3.3 million Jews in Poland at the start of the war (9/39). At most maybe 1/2 million fled to other areas outside Korherr’s “Eastern Provinces”.

The 1939 Jewish population is very well established to have been about 3.3 million in 1939. That is a given. I haven’t read what R. Unz has written but Sanning has the 1939 Jewish population of Poland as having been about 2.0 million:

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/1/4227

And THEN he claims that the vast majority of the Polish Jews on the Soviet side (about 841k out of 1026k) were sent out of Poland by the Soviets. So Sanning thinks that there were less than ONE million Polish Jews that the Germans could have possibly handled. And yet the Germans estimated that 1.5 million were directly handled by them (transported to “the Russian East” – interpreted as a euphemism for slaughtered in the Reinhard death camps).

There’s abundant evidence that there were plenty more Polish Jews than Sanning claims during the war.

I gave you the link to his latest in my post. Here it is again:

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/1/4227

Those tables show what he said in his book. Look at tables 2 and 3. Table 2 claims 797k in West Poland in 1939 and about 1213k in the Soviet side in the ’30s – which implies about 2 million in all of Poland. Table 3 claims 841k of the 1026k Soviet side Jews were removed from Poland by the Soviets.

The Polish Jew population is a tough one to figure given the border changes both in the interwar years and the post-war years. But the 1939 Jewish population in the Poland of September 1939 was about 3.3 million.

Sanning’s thesis relies on much more than 700,000 less Jews in Poland during the war years. Sanning has less than a million Polish Jews under German rule in Poland during the war:

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/1/4227

Well the link says the answer is 10. But 3 is not distinct in your sequences – it is found in both your a sequence and your b sequence, isn’t it? The problem claimed “40 distinct positive integers”. You have 39 distinct positive integers.

I think you are correct if it had stated that EACH sequence consisted of 20 distinct positive integers. And I think that is what was intended to be asked.

The answer to what is actually asked HAS to be 21 or greater – not 10.

Yeah, I did almost the exact same thing as the solution you’ve quoted here. It’s obvious that the solution, x, is of the form 4 + 6n since 1000 – x is divisible by 6. and b20 = 1 LOOKS like it would give the smallest answer. But I didn’t think to start the “a” sequence in this way. I foolishly made the “b” sequence the monotonic one – not the “a” sequence. I came up with 40. But it looks like yours is correct.

You got me googling with that. Apparently LIGO claims:

“At its most sensitive state, LIGO will be able to detect a change in distance between its mirrors 1/10,000th the width of a proton!”

The “width of a proton” is generally taken to mean 10^-15. So LIGO claims a tolerance of 10^-19. I didn’t look into this claim to see how they determine this.

I guess this Webb Telescope is exponentially more precise than LIGO somehow.

Elizabeth Warren is more pure than Ivory Soap!

University College is a subsidiary non-selective (100% accepted) branch of the University of Maryland:

https://www.collegexpress.com/college/university-of-maryland-university-college/3000133/details/

It is similar to a community college.

College Park is the flagship campus (with the Terrapins). It is more selective – only 44% acceptance rate. And its tuition is accordingly 43% higher.

https://www.collegexpress.com/college/university-of-maryland-college-park/2400206/details/

You might be right with this. I was blown away when hearing of the Isle of Wight pub singer who was arrested for singing the song Kung Fu Fighting!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380971/Simon-Ledger-arrested-racism-performing-Kung-Fu-Fighting.html

Mexico is listed as both number 2 and number 17 at that wikipedia page linked for obesity. Which is it?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is that of heights of projectiles under constant gravity – parameterized by time (X in these equations).

The heights of each of 2 projectiles at time t would be a parabola in t. The question then can be seen as what is the height of the one projectile in terms of the height of the other projectile? So it is a relativity problem.

Since the Ys are parameterized by parabolas, the 2 Ys would have a quadratic relation to each other – since you could obviously get a quadratic relation by manipulating the two equations to remove the Xs and have only Y1 and Y2 and constants. For instance, multiply the first by “d”, the second by “a” and subtracting the equations – giving a linear relation for “X”. Then plug that into one of the other equations to “remove” X from it and have only at most quadratic Y1 and Y2.

So while I agree that you would not get a unique solution, you’d still have a quadratic relation between the Y1 and Y2. And this tells you, for instance, that the height of one trajectory as seen from another trajectory is quadratic. So you’d get conic section solutions.

A “series of quadratics”?

One can obviously manipulate the equations to find that:

A * Y1^2 + B * Y2^2 + C * Y1 * Y2 + D * Y1 + E * Y2 + F = 0

where (A,B,C,D,E,F) are derived from the (a,b,c,d,e,f) of the original equations.

So the Y1 and Y2 have a general quadratic relation with each other and therefore can be viewed as points on a conic section if you like.

While this is not technically a “function” relationship, it’s not a “series of quadratics” relation. It’s simply a quadratic relation – plain and simple.

Y1 in terms of Y2 would in general give 2 points – as Derbyshire said.

As I posted elsewhere (on Steve Sailer’s blog where this came up), that Turkheimer quadratic problem I thought to be an interesting way to view trajectories of projectiles under a constant force (such as gravity).

Of course a projectile on the surface of the earth would be a parabola (ax^2 + bx +c) due to the constant gravity. So 2 projectiles in the same plane (say one starts at a different angle and with a different initial velocity than the other) would give the two quadratic equations such as Turkheimer states. Then Turkheimer’s question becomes: What is the other projectile’s trajectory from the point of view of the first projectile? And the answer is: some type of conic section – since those equations can be manipulated to show that Y1 and Y2 have a general quadratic relationship to each other.

So if I were shot from a cannon at a certain initial velocity and angle and viewed someone else shot from the same cannon at a different velocity and angle, I’d see that person’s trajectory as a conic section!

I know linear algebra quite well. What does your “series of quadratics” have to do with it?

The Y1 and Y2 share a quadratic relationship to each other and can therefore be seen as points on a conic section. Why anyone would wish to view that as a “series of quadratics” is beyond me. Would you view the points on a circle as a “series of quadratics” for each ordinate? Of course not. Your “series of quadratics” concept is more complicated than the original problem – which is simply to state the relationship between ordinates parameterized by quadratic equations. For the circle, you’d parameterize like:

Y1 = cos(theta)
Y2 = sin(theta)

In this instance, the Y’s are parameterized by quadratics. Saying they therefore can generally be seen as points on a conic section is a hell of alot easier to think about than a quadratic for each point – simply because each point would map to 2 points. The (a,b,c,d,e,f) simply determines the particular conic section. Easy peasy. No need for your “series of quadratics” – which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with linear algebra!

Do you even know what LINEAR algebra is? This problem is quadratic!

It just occurred to me that I should have used “t” insead of “x” for clarity here. Or “delta_t” actually since the trajectories don’t need a common starting time of course.

h = h0 + v0 * delta_t – 1/2 g (delta_t)^2

The height of the trajectory is quadratic in time.

The question was: what is Y1 in terms of Y2 when each of those is parameterized by a quadratic X? In other words, get the “X” out of the equations. It was really that simple – as Derbyshire said.

You are the one who doesn’t understand.

The “basis vectors” as you said in the previous reply are not linear at all. The Ys are PARAMETERIZED by quadratics (parabolas). Complicating the issue by talking of “basis vectors” only gives you a complicated mess of an affine space where your “basis vectors” change at each point – which means they aren’t proper mathematical vectors at all (they aren’t closed under addition and scalar multiplication). These “vectors” you imagine are not even affine actually (a physics vector space – as opposed to a mathematics vector space). A parabola has the weird symmetry of your original post – which is not linear in the space itself (doesn’t scale linearly).

You are quite confused.

Gheesh!

I have not introduced any “Y3”. It is you who is introducing “basis vectors” into this non-vector space.

And it is you who doesn’t know your “(only slightly) advanced linear algebra” you are musing about. In general, the Ys have a non-linear relationship, period.

I have a quite advanced level of knowledge in the subjects you think I have a “rigid little mind” about. That is why I showed you where you are misunderstanding these things.

You misunderstand the quite introductory text you cite and are mis-applying vectors with what you are doing here. And that is why you think your “series of quadratics” nonsense is something other than nonsense. Your “series of quadratics” crapola is a result of you applying a linear analysis to a non-linear problem, has nothing whatsoever to do with the original problem, and has everything to do with you not understanding the methods you are using. You are chasing your own tail.

The original problem merely asked to express Y1 in terms of Y2. And that is what Derbyshire showed how to do: solve for X in terms of Y2 and plug that into the Y1 equation. But that doesn’t really give one any insight into how Y1 and Y2 are related because you’d of course have the messy square root in Y1 from the quadratic formula. It is more informative to remove the X by simple manipulation of the equations to get that:

A * Y1^2 + B * Y2^2 + C * Y1 * Y2 + D * Y1 + E * Y2 + F = 0

where the (A,B,C,D,E,F) are some constants based on the initial (a,b,c,d,e,f) constants. And so this obviously shows that the initial parametric equations constrain the Y1 and Y2 to some conic section. This is all one can say given the generality of the initial problem. The Y1 and Y2 have this nonlinear relationship to each other.

A general parabola (ax^2 + bx +c) cannot be referenced with bases vectors in a 2-dimensional linear vector space because parabolas are not linearly similar to each other – like a circle where any circle can be expressed as a translation (addition) and scaling of any other circle. So you cannot come up with some “parabolic coordinate system” akin to the “polar coordinate system” for circles. If you do, you’d find that your bases vectors will need to expand or contract depending on where they are at that particular point in the space. IOW the space is NOT a linear one. And so your thinking about it as if it IS linear is bogus and a misunderstanding of the tools you are using.

You should have been clued into that by the very fact that your “series of quadratics” crap is actually ridiculously more involved than the original problem itself! It’s as if I asked you to tell me what “x” is if “x+5 = 10” and you respond with “well if you square the circle … blah blah blah”. You didn’t address the problem at all. You merely showed that you are quite confused about the tools you chose to misuse for the problem. Do you see that?

I had to rethink that last reply from me.

If one wished to reference something in two dimensions using polar coordinates instead of cartesian coordinates, one would use the basis vectors r_hat and theta_hat where:

x * x_hat = r * cos(theta) * r_hat
y * y_hat = r * sin(theta) * r_hat

x * x_hat in this notation is simply saying the vector “x” – has magnitude x in the direction of x_hat (right-left on a cartesian coordinate). Similarly for y in the up-down coordinate. And of course r_hat is a unit vector in the radial direction and theta_hat would be a unit vector in the angular direction.

In the problem at hand, we have that x and y are parametric in t (let’s use x,y, and t rather than the original’s Y1,Y2, and X) for a more standard way of writing it.

x = a * t^2 + b * t + c
y = d * t^2 + e * t + f

Now, if you wish to look at this as transforming the bases of x,y into a basis for t (and something else – let’s keep it 2 dimensions), what are those bases? Are you saying that you are using the focus and directrix of a parabola as the bases?

How might looking at these parametric equations in this way help in understanding those parametric equations better?

Is this what you are saying? And how does this help the initial person in his desire to know how x and y relate to each other when they are parameterized by a quadratic t? I can’t see why you would impose a vector space here.

No, not at all.

Taking your linear example. If you say that:

Y1 = AX + B
Y2 = CX + D

is saying that both Y1 and Y2 are linear in X. And therefore they are linear to each other. You can solve for X in either equation and get a linear equation in the Ys – as you did in your example. Talking about “Y1 – Y2” or the point where “Y1 = Y2” is just your own confusion about what is being asked. If Y1 and Y2 are both linear in a parametric X then they are linear to each other:

CY1 – AY2 = CB – AD

This is a linear relation between Y1 and Y2. There’s no particular reason to care about “Y1 – Y2” nor the point where “Y1 = Y2”. You are confused.

You are also confused about what a “line” is by your statement:

“To express one line in terms of another is meaningless; to express one line in terms of two lines that are orthogonal is a question that has meaning.”

Your two orthogonal lines are simply your imposition of a coordinate system on how you are thinking about a line. A line is one-dimensional to itself – one need only know “where” one is on a line in that one dimension. Its relation to another line would be another dimension – if it is linearly independent (that is the definition of linear independence). Orthogonality is of course not required – it just makes the referencing tidier in the math. Linear independence is all that is needed for bases in 2 dimensions – not orthogonality.

So a line is 1-dimensional and 2 linearly independent lines is 2-dimensional.

A parabola is merely a curved line. The relation of 2 parabolas to each other is the same as the relation of 2 lines to each other. One can one-dimensionally reference where one is on a parabola as the distance from its apex for instance. And one can 2-dimensioanlly reference another parabola. So instead of 2 “straight lines” in your imposed 2-dimensional coordinate system, you’d have a reference of the one curved line to the other curved line – 2 dimensions.

For example.

Say that one fires a trajectory out of a cannon on Earth’s surface and that the only force is constant gravity (neglect all other forces but gravity).

F_x = 0
F_y = -mg (g is constant)

Therefore one gets that:

x = x0 + v0_x * t
y = y0 + v0_y * t – 1/2 g * t^2

Eliminating t in these equations gives that

y = a * x^2 + b * x + c

The trajectory is a parabola for a projectile under a constant force in one dimension and no force in the other.

Now if you were ON this trajectory, this trajectory is your basis for anything you view outside it (your reference coordinates are that you are ON this trajectory – x = y = 0 for you). In the initial coordinate system of the problem, one has your trajectory being seen as:

y1 = a * x^2 + b * x + c

But to you, who is ON this trajectory, x=y=0 t all times.

Some other trajectory, which is not the one you are on, is fired from the cannon:

y2 = d * x^2 + e * x + f.

The question to you is: What is this other trajectory relative to YOUR coordinate system (which itself is another parabola in the original coordinate system)?

This is what is being asked here.

And the answer is to eliminate the common “x” in the equation to find that:

A * y1 ^2 + B * y2^2 + C * y1 * y2 + D * y1 + E * y 2+ F = 0

And this is a general quadratic – which is some type of conic section depending on what the (A,B,C,D,E,F) are (ellipse, hyperbola, parabola, point, or line).

So YOU would see that other trajectory as some particular conic section.

But what can be called called a “generation” in this age of time travel we live in?

Oops! I might have let the cat out of the bag for you people born before XXXX. Just ignore that last comment.

And a birdie told me to buy Tesla stock 😉 Keep it under your hat.

That and Dutch tulips should fund an early retirement nicely enough!

That sounds about right.

When I went to parochial grade school in the ’70s, there was a policy in my school to have the racial demographics match the general US grade school racial demographics – and that was 13% blacks in the early ’70s. My school did that even though the 13% blacks couldn’t afford the tuition.

So if parochial schools were doing that at the time, then the proportions would stay unchanged for the public schools. Therefore the 85/15 split you referenced would be about the same for public schools.

But I went to grade school in Baltimore City – which was about 50/50 white/black at the time. So the Baltimore City public schools were VERY black at the time – probably the reverse of my parochial school – 15/85 white/black.

Your extremely confused – and kind of have it backwards. The tiny line segments are real number line segments between two rational numbers (n/d – 1/10d^3 and n/d). All of those real number line segments only account for at most 1/6 of the real numbers between 0 and 1. Those numbers that do not fall within any of those line segments therefore make up the other 5/6ths-plus real numbers between 0 and 1. But those numbers are isolated because rational numbers are dense in real numbers (between any 2 distinct real numbers is a rational number). So all of those zero-length points (the points not in any of those line segments) account for over 5/6 of the real numbers between 0 and 1. This is counter-intuitive precisely because those numbers are merely isolated points before and after line segments. Do you see now?

On waking this morning and thinking about the math conundrum here, I think the problem is with the concept of “counting” Real Number “infinity”.

If one were to refer to Real Number infinity as RI, and a countable set’s infinity as CI that might possibly resolve the problem.

I think RI has the queer property that any countable manipulation of it is still that RI – it can never go away in a countable way.

So when Derb says that L < 1/6 he is correct insofar that RI == 1/6 * RI (RI is identically equal to 1/6 times RI in his countable construction of it). But the set is uncountable – it is a collection of uncountable real number sets – that just so happen to be countably constructed.

So although it would be the case that the numbers not in his countably constructed sets are isolated because of the countable construction, each one of those sets is uncountable.

So you have a CI number of sets of length RI. And that is then RI.

If you were to think about it as is done here, you'd of course think "where are those real numbers"? And the answer is that they are indeed as he described them – there just so happens to be RI number of them (not a CI number – even though those sets are indeed constructed CI times).

Does anyone know exactly how the math would work for something like this?

For instance, while it might be the case that if you had a grandparent who was 100% Jewish, then you would probably be at least 25% Jewish – assuming that the genes determining that are passed on in equal proportions to genes that are not determinative of being Jewish.

But what if you had a 10-generation-ago ancestor who was 1/4 Jewish genetically – and those Jewish genes were simply passed on undiluted through ten generations? Are some genes more likely to be passed on than others? Or is it in fact the case that one gets an EXACT mixture of genes from one’s parents? I’m pretty sure this is NOT the case.

It seems to me that one could theoretically have Jewish genes passed on from a 100% genetically Jewish person from any time in the genetic past – if those genes are persistent. And we all know how persistent Jews can be!

Maybe Jewish genes are more “selfish” than others – to paraphrase Dawkins!

Very interesting post. I myself have studied the Jewish population numbers (in connection with Holocaust denial as a matter of fact – but that’s beside the point).

I think the estimating of Jews in former Soviet countries tends to only refer to religious Jews. And religion was taboo in the Soviet Union.

There were about 11 million Jews in Europe at the start of WWII. And it is claimed that there were about 5 million there afterwards. The vast majority of these were in Soviet states (Russia in particular).

If you notice the citations of Steve’s OP, you see that Staetsky estimates that about 130,000 Hungarians have 50% or more Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. But as you’ve quoted, he says that 4.2% of the test takers had 50% or more Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Using 9 million as Hungary’s popultaion, 4.2% of that would be 378,000. So he is estimating that Jews are 3 times more likely to take the test – and therefore the percentages are off by a factor of 3.

Doing the same for your Russian example, 1/3 of your 4.46 million would be 1.5 million. And this is probably right for the number of Russians of 50% Jewish ancestry – even after large emigrations.

BTW, Jews flooded into the USA starting around about the 1880s. And they very quickly became about 3-4% of the whole USA population in the first part of the 20th century. You can verify this with the AJC Yearbook archives:

http://ajcarchives.org/main.php?GroupingId=40

For instance, the 1939 Yearboook:

http://ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1938_1939_7_Statistics.pdf

has the Jews being 4,228,029 of the 122,775,046 USA population = 3.4%.

I’m certain they hit 4% one year but didn’t bother to search for that exact year. I think it was in the year before the ’20s immigration laws (and probably influenced those laws).

Regarding an earlier comment on this thread, 7.5% of Hungary’s approximate 10 million population is 750,000 – which happens to be Hungary’s estimated Jewish population in 1941 (after all of the border changes are taken into account). I suspect a Holocaust denier could probably make something of this. I’m not inclined to, though. I’m just taking the article at face value – that there are only about 130,000 50% genetic Jews in Hungary today.

I’m not certain such a calculus applies to the problem. Genes can be dominant. I think the only way to know is to perform empirical tests. And these DNA tests have not been around long enough to have done that.

The sort of test I have in mind of course would be something like:

1. Determine the “ethnicities” of animals that then have offspring together – in the way “ethnicity” is being determined here for humans.

2. See what the mix is in the offspring.

3. Do this for many generations.

I read a fairly long time ago that white Brits and Americans are much more blue-eyed than they were just a few generations ago. And yet I’ve also heard that blue eyes are recessive genes. I don’t think people are using the right models for these sorts of things.

But I have no problem with what you say from an entirely theoretical standpoint. I’m simply more of an empiricist in such matters.

Just the shear stupidity of this Ibrahim Soudy claiming at around the 6 minute mark that Galileo “came up with the discovery that the Earth cannot be flat” rules him out as a serious person. I had to stop listening right then.

If this fool knows nothing about Galileo – which every Western secondary schooler learns about – and yet decides to state ridiculous nonsense about him in the most laughably ignorant way, he can be assumed to be doing the same with anything that follows.

What an ignorant buffoon!

BTW, why the hell did Barrett humor the moron with this flat Earth silliness? Is Barrett as dumb as he?

For those who are clueless, as has occurred to me might be the case (and might think I’m advocating flat Earth or something!), the issue with Galileo is usually stated as being that of the Earth being the center of the universe (as conceived of at the time) – IOW, heliocentrism vs geocentrism. The issue is usually nuanced differently from the Roman Catholic perspective, but seeing it in these terms would be more true to the matter.

Flat Earth was not officially taught by the Church. The official stance on that was that the Earth was indeed an orb – and not flat. There were then, as now, always ignorant persons about that though. And the flat Earth connotations with Galileo were either silly hyperbole or from hopelessly ignorant fools – which appears to be the case with this Ibrahim Soudy.

How someone gets a Ph.D. in a technical field with such a bizarrely stupid view on this matter shows what that Ph.D. is worth – and how poorly this man’s reasoning faculties are! Or that he spouts off ignorant nonsense about things which he knows nothing about.

Here is a pseudonymous English translation for free:

https://archive.org/details/200YearsTogether

The comment you replied to is bollocks – it can’t be shown that “there wasn’t enough fuel …”. But it does require more fuel to burn a corpse than supplied by that corpse. That is because of the water content of the corpse. The cremation process consists of evaporating the water from a corpse (which of course results in evaporative cooling) and igniting the combustibles of that corpse (which suppplies heat). The heat from the corpse’s combustibles is not enough to offset the heat needed for the evaporation.

It is odd that your wiki link to Topf mentioned one of their patents – but not the one that most closely aligns with the case you wish to make. Their patent DRP 861731 was for a cremation oven that only required external fuel to bring it up to temperature and thereafter only the fuel of the coffins to continuously operate. But that coffin fuel was of course necessary. You couldn’t cremate corpses solely from the fuel of those corpses – as in your wood example.

I discuss this Topf patent here:

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3141&p=123329#p123329

You can go directly to the very ending of that particular post of mine for a short synopsis of what the patent claims. Topf did indeed make a few of these particular cremation ovens which worked as claimed.

Wiki “Petroleum in the United States”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_in_the_United_States

The USA imports about 11% of its oil from abroad and about 11% of that is from Saudi Arabia. I don’t think that 1% of our oil consumption is as important as you make out.

An interesting factoid on that webpage is that our state oil production leaders are:

1. Texas – 29%
2. Alaska – 13%
3. North Dakota – 10%
4. California – 5%

Note: The graphic on that page shows ND as number 2. I wasn’t aware of ND’s oil production as being as significant as it is.

According to that webpage the USA produced 4 billion barrels of oil in 2018 and the average wellhead price was $61/barrel. That’s 244 billion dollars!

After just now googling our GDP, I see it is $20 trillion nowadays! I guess I shouldn’t be impressed by a mere $244 billion.

The national average property tax is 1.08%. Persons generally figure that they should be able to get a better return on investment than the money that would be given to the scheme you envision. And the property tax rate is a percentage of current property value – which can’t be predicted very well into the future. Home values tend to jump. One can’t do a one-time payment of a moving value.

Your scheme isn’t good for either side of the deal. Particularly since most people go with a 30 year mortgage. The property tax is essentially just an addition to the mortgage payment.

According to this article from last month, Taylor Swift intends to re-record her older stuff as soon as she can legally do so – which is next year.

https://www.etonline.com/taylor-swift-calls-out-scooter-braun-and-scott-borchetta-over-rights-to-perform-her-older-music

quote:

Swift went on the claim that Borchetta told her reps that Big Machine Records will give the approval “only if I do these things: If I agree to not re-record copycat versions of my songs next year (which is something I’m both legally allowed to do and looking forward to) and also told my team that I need to stop talking about him and Scooter Braun.”

Your calculator is merely calculating the integral of the normal distribution.

A fuller answer to the man’s question would be to simply graph a normal distribution scaled by 65, centered at 100 and with a SD of 15. And then plot on the same axis a normal distribution scaled by 2, centered at 110 with a SD of 15. Then you can see exactly how those 2 distributions compare – throughout the entire axis – and in particular past 145 if you like.

It just occurred to me that I should have said to scale by 0.65 and 0.02 – if you want to say at the end to multiply by the “N” you mentioned. I was only thinking of the relative comparison with the graphs.

Your math is correct, btw, because 145 is 3 SDs from a 100-mean 15-SD distribution and 3 SDs integrates out to .9973.

So (1-.9973)/2 * .65 = .0008775

The division by 2 is to only consider the right side of the distribution of course (the distribution is symmetric around the mean).

China has only one time zone throughout its 60 degrees of longitude (with Beijing experiencing solar noon at 12:00):

https://www.timeanddate.com/time/china/one-time-zone.html

So the farthest western areas of China experience solar noon at 3:00 PM.

I wasn’t aware of this until now. Mao collapsed the former 5 time zones into one in 1949.

Yes, the Jewish population movements of the time are indeed a “complex and highly specialized topic”. And I have read the Butz and Sanning book that you reference.

If you look at Sanning’s reference to his book conclusions at:

http://inconvenienthistory.com/9/1/4227

In all of his tables – but in particular let’s look at the last one, Table 5, he claims that only 757,000 Jews were in the Polish areas in 1941.

But if one were to reference the Korherr Report of the Germans created in early ’43:

https://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korherr/

Here it is translated in English (but missing some things in there which I won’t be referencing here and doesn’t matter for this discussion):

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/korherr.html

You notice that the Germans throughout this report are saying that there were about 2.0 million Jews in those Polish areas at the time. For instance, in the short report, it has:

Eastern Territories – 790,000
General Government – 2,000,000

And in section V.4 of the long report, it claims that the Germans “evacuated” 1.5 million Jews from the “Eastern Provences” to “the Russian East” by the end of ’42.

And the sub-number of V.4 of the Jews sifted through the camps in the General Government (1,274,166) is the exact same number as the Hoefle Telegram’s total for the number who were sent to the Aktion Reinhard camps.

So the Germans have this and more documentation showing them transporting more than 1.5 million Jews in these areas that Sanning only accounts for their being 757,000 in the Polish areas + areas east of that which don’t seem to show up in his table anywhere.

Where did the over 1.5 million Jews that the Germans transported come from – given Sanning’s analysis? It simply isn’t in there. Sanning fails.

I only use this one example to be clear on how obviously Sanning fails. I could go into more detail but a comment on an article here is not the place for that. Sanning is ridiculously wrong on the most simple of considerations.

While the subject is quite complex, the numbers of Jews that came under German control is known roughly well enough. The number of Jews that the Germans handled, in particular the ones in the General Government and neighboring region ghettos, is known roughly well enough. For instance, the large ghettos such as Warsaw and Lodz are known pretty well.

The number of Jews the Germans claim to have come across in the East of there is known roughly well enough.

The Germans handled these millions of Jews and they were nowhere to be found after the Germans handling of them.

Sanning is wrong in how many Polish Jews the Germans came across. They weren’t sent to Siberia in the numbers he deludes himself with (there were quite alot that were relocated by the Soviets though – just not Sanning’s delusional number).

While the person’s statement you are replying to is a rather simple one for a complex issue, it still stands. No one has come across those Jews after the war. In particular, no one has come across the Jews that are quite known to have been directly handled and documented by the Germans – in things such as this Korherr Report for one. So the OP’s position i justified enough and your snide reply does not refute it.

But there were found at Majdanek the clothes of about 2 million Jews at its liberation. Hence the reason why it was estimated that many Jews were killed there. In particular, there were HUGE stockpiles of old shoes at Majdanek from about 2 million Jews.

Contrary to what most people think, there was never a very large percentage of Jews sent to work or concentration camps. The vast bulk of the Jews were sent into ghettos in the General Government (the parts of prewar Poland not annexed to the Reich). And then those ghettos were cleared out – thousands per day and sent to AR camps. The AR camps were small and didn’t have room for anymore than some few thousands at a time (if that). Their clothes were sent to Majdanek; so where did the Germans send these naked Jews from these AR camps? The majority of the ghetto inhabitants were unfit for work – as stated by Buehler in the minutes of the Wannsee conference:

https://www.yadvashem.org/docs/wannsee-conference-protocol.html

The ghettos were cleared thousands per day. Everyone knew this at the time. Everyone knew at the time when those ghettos were essentially completely empty of any Jews. It is known fairly well that there were plenty of Jews in those ghettos before being transported out and virtually none afterward. And their belongings ended up at Majdanek.

No one has a clue where the vast bulk of those Jews ended up if they were not slaughtered. The known transports elsewhere don’t add up to much. And there are no records or even logic to justify any claim that millions of unfit for work Jews were settled somewhere else.

Confusion at the time about engine types, pit sizes, etc is no answer to what happened to those Jews. Those confusions have the possibility of being cleared up.

For those who might not be aware: Neuengamme had little to do with the Jewish Holocaust. The atrocities alleged of there were on non-Jews.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/neuengamme

“Initially, there were very few Jews in the camp; by 1942, they numbered between 300 and 500. In the summer and autumn of 1942, the SS removed all of the Jews”

Just an FYI to correct what looked like misconceptions to me in many of the comments. Steve might wish to clear this up in the main post.

Do you lay down on the floor to type on that keyboard?

The answer to your brainteaser is that the situation is impossible.

It is to be assumed that each couple know each other. So the number of hands shaken by anyone is in the range 0 to 20 (no one shakes his partner’s or his own hand).

If each person of 21 people gives a different number from all others in the range 0 to 20, then they all as a group have given inclusively the range 0 to 20. But the person saying he shook 20 hands conflicts with the person saying he shook 0 hands – because he had to have shaken all hands other than his own and his spouse’s and therefore had to have shaken the hand of the person who claims to have shook no hands. This is a contradiction.

Oh yes, I see what you are saying. The question then becomes: is that 0-20 pairing Alexandra and Nicholas or another couple?

It cannot be Alexandra and Nicholas because Alexandra’s number of handshakes has to be the same as someone else’s – because there are no other numbers to choose from 0 to 20. If she shook 20 hands, then someone else must have shaken 20 hands and you get the contradiction again. There is a similar contradiction if she shook 0 hands. So the 0-20 couple cannot be Alexandra and Nicholas.

If it is not Alexandra and Nicholas, then remove that other couple from consideration and consider what is left: Nicholas and 9 couples who have numbers 1 to 19 inclusive. You can then renumber after removing that removed couple’s handshakes from consideration – the person who shook 20 hands shook everyone’s hand – in particular the person who shook one hand – namely him! So you can recursively drill down, removing the 1-19 couple and so on and so forth.

You are at the end of this recursion left with only 10-10 – which must be what Alexandra and Nicolas are (the 10-10 couple)!

Therefore Nicholas shook 10 hands!

That was an interesting problem! Thanks for helping out with that. One of those rare problems that can be thought through entirely in one’s head.

I said the same thing in post 7 – but reconsidered in post 13 after being made aware that the 0 and 20 handshakers must be a couple.

That 20-0 couple cannot be Alexandra and Nicholas because Alexandra has to have the same number of handshakes as someone else – since the others have all numbers inclusive. And if Alexandra shook 20 hands, then someone else must have shaken 20 hands and therefore had to have shaken Nicholas’ hand – but he has 0 shakes. Likewise, Alexandra cannot have shaken 0 hands because the other person who has shaken 0 hands conflicts with Nicholas having shaken 20 hands.

On considering all other couples minus the 20-0 couple, you then recurse down to eliminating Nicholas and Alexandra as being a 20-0, 19-1, 18-2, … (renumber the handshakes removing 1 from each – given the fact of the one removed couple having someone shaking all hands and the other none). So Alexandra and Nicholas must be the 10-10 pairing.

Nicholas shook 10 hands.

Interesting party arrangement!

The math problem is easily figurable by considering the probability of not getting the six on each roll – 5/6. So the probability of not getting a 6 on 4 rolls would be (5/6)^4 = 625/1296 = 0.48. So the probability of a 6 turning up in one of those 4 rolls is therefore 1.00 – 0.48 = 0.52 – or better than even odds.

Likewise, for the double-sixes with 2 dice: (35/36)^4 = 0.89. So the probability of getting a double-sixes in 4 rolls is only 0.11. It’d take about 25 rolls for favorable odds for that one (ln(1/2)/ln(35/36)).

Oh gheez, I misremembered what you stated: 24 rolls of the dice pair for double sixes.

The odds of no double sixes after 24 rolls would be (35/36)^24 = 0.51. So the odds of getting a double-six in those 24 rolls would be 0.49 – less than even odds.

If he had added one more roll he’d be over the break-even mark (just barely at 0.506 odds)!

I am familiar with his argument, as you highlighted it before. Of course, there are competing theories, but in my estimation the sources I provided undercut Wright’s thesis.

How did the sources you provided “undercut” his thesis?

His thesis was that exports were only 7% of US GDP.

And the sources you keep going on about are simply stating that the textile industry was very large. But one of your sources offhandedly stated that cotton wasn’t even as big as wheat within the internal economy of the USA. How many slaves were involved in the wheat production of the time?

An interesting tidbit in your quotes was the statement that 1/5 of all workers in Britain were involved in some way or other in the textile industry. How large was that a percentage of Britain’s GDP at the time? And what was Britain’s GDP in relation to the USA’s at the time?

And then they go on and on about exports blah blah blah, capitalism blah blah blah. Blah blah blah!

The point of the OP was that exports were a small part of the USA (and other countries’) GDP.

Please refute this point for us from your quotes. Show how your quotes undercut the point.

Can you explain your reasoning about “undercutting” his point? I am genuinely not getting your attitude.

Slave industries were important for cash crops – for export. But exports were not all that important for the wealth of the USA is the point. Please refute this point.

I haven’t figured out the exact answer to the brainteaser but the expression:

A^3 + B^3 + C^3 – 3ABC can be factored into:

(A + B + C)(A^2 + B^2 + C^2 – AB – AC – BC)

So if you set B = A + n and C = A + m, you could write that as:

(3A + n + m)(n^2 + m^2 – nm)

A quick perl script to look at the answers suggests that all non-negative numbers other than multiples of 3 which aren’t also a multiple of 9 can be attained. I haven’t figured out why this is though.

I just today used similar logic to yours. I asked the question of which numbers (of the A, B, C – where C >= B >= A) would give me the smallest resultant number (keeping in mind the symmetry as you wrote there). And you get linear relations in A – which imply what you write in your write-up – such as the 3A + 1 relation you noticed.

… etc.

It’d be a bit of a bear to write it out formally as a comment. I guess that’s why your write-up is the length it is.

If blacks were, say, 13% of the population, and if a black were to randomly kill someone, he’d be (100/13 = 7.7) times more likely to kill a non-black than a black because there are 7.7 times as many non-blacks than blacks. Conversely, a non-black would only be 13% likely to kill a black if killing randomly.

Just from a purely random distribution of killing, blacks would be about 8 times more likely to kill a non-black.

Is this incorrect? Why would no one mention this?

No the way the matter was put can only be thought to have been incompetent or intentionally misleading.

God only knows what you mean by “bass ackwards”.

If you are a member of a majority, than anything relating to probabilities of ANY minority/majority interactions will naturally have it that the minority will have a greater probability of that interaction with the majority than than vice versa.

Blacks are more likely to have practically ANY interaction with a non-black than the non-black with the black.

Tell me the statistics for minorities other than blacks. How much more likely is it for an oriental person to kill a white person than for a white person to kill an oriental person? That Virginia Tech oriental mass shooter from years back probably skews those results? Should you walk around fearing being shot by an oriental from that? Because that is how someone will interpret what is being stated here by most people.

There’s probably ample evidence to make a case for blacks being more criminally violent. Misleading people by stating what is stated in this post isn’t the way to do that. It only leads to you looking incompetent or biased (and “bass ackward”, lol).

I was wondering that too. I did a web search and came across:

https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sandi/Board.nsf/files/BRQUES7BBDEB/$file/Final-Building%20Anti-Racist%20%26%20Restorative%20School%20Communities.pdf

Which has a bar graph of:

I’m not sure how to interpret this one either though!

But it says that Asians are 6.4% for Steve and everyone else’s info.

Maybe the “Two Plus” are counted in multiple categories (e.g. a black/white mulatto goes into both the “black” and the “white” categories)?

That must be it. It explains the large American Indian number as well.

I hereby humbly request “X consistency”:

Latino = Latinx
Blacks = Blax
POC = Pox
Chinese = Chinx

What he said was nonsense; that’s why!

Check out ANOVA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance

Here’s the winning map:

This has nothing to do with California but where I live the cars wrap around the Chick-fil-A drive-thru 3 times. There’s always like 50 cars in line at any time!

I went there once because someone gave me a gift certificate. I went inside and waited in line behind about 30 people. On reaching the counter I asked the woman there what the event was and she told me it is that way from open to close every day they’re open!

I was under the impression that USA food, beverage, and feed exports were quite high. Surely something in that list sells for a dollar or less 9 thousand miles away, don’t you think?

I fail to see any constructive point to your post. Why don’t you tell me how your post applies, for instance, to Germany?

Are you saying that you want the USA to produce and sell cheap crap far away?

It’s simple but tedious to prove this by induction.

Assume you’ve entered into your 4-element periodic sequence (A, B, -B, A-B) and are at A-B. Then you can show that the next number you get is A because

A-B = max{A, -B} – B (because A > -B)

So now you are at A.

Then the next number will be B because:

-B = max{A-B, B} – A (because A > 2B)

Then the next number will be -B because:

B = max{-B, A} – (A – B) (because A > -B)

So now you are at -B.

Then the next number will be A – B because:

A = max{B, A-B} – (-B) (because A > 2B).

To get your answer, assume it (a 4-element period) and prove it inductively at step X_sub(N) ( = your “A” here).

You’d need to show that the sequence will always fall into the suitable (A, B) of course. To do that you’d need to consider the 4 separate conditions that arise – which is too tedious for me to bother with. I’m sure Derb can handle it though.

The 13th amendment (passed in 1865) made indentured servitude illegal in the USA. Anyone who might have been involved in such a thing in 1901 in any way was a felon.

I believe you might be conflating “indenture” with something else.

It’s probably the Spring Lake Winery by Niagara Falls.

Northern climes grow grapes and have wineries too, fyi.

https://newyorkwineevents.com/new-yorks-10-best-wineries/

For the math problem, call the upper circle’s radius r1, the lower r2, and the larger r3. Translate the r1 and r2 circles to common axes (r2-r1 away from the r3 circle y-axis). Consider the r2 on the translated x-axis and r1 on the translated y-axis. The hypotenuse of that right triangle is r3. So r1^2 + r2^2 = r3^2. And therefore:

1/2 * pi * r1^2 + 1/2 * pi * r2^2 = 1/2 * pi * r3^2

q.e.d.

I meant 1/2 * (r2 – r1). r1 + epsilon = r2 – epsilon = r3 (where epsilon is the center of the circle for r3). So I meant 1/2 * (r2 – r1) for the common y-coordinate of the 2 semicircles.

He wants a coil bookend.

Derb is incorrect that a bookend such as he shows there sold for $3 40 years ago – maybe 50 years ago but not 40. A $3 bookend from 50 years ago would be about $20 today. And that is what they are now.

Go to ebay.com and search for “coil bookend” and then sort on price+shipping. They’re about $20 nowadays.

Or you could search for “adjustable bookend” – which look pretty neat to me – and are also in the $15-$20 range.

If you get them from Amazon.com, there’s usually some sort of free shipping over a certain price point. That might be a better bet than ebay in this case.

I think you’re overthinking it.

You are 0.5 related to each of your parents. So 2 people who share one parent (not both) are 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 related.

Half- siblings are therefore 0.25 related.

Electric cars are the most cost effective choice for most person’s needs. And their performance in most categories blows away all others.

The most cost-effective way electricity is generated today is through solar. The trouble, though, with solar is that its production is choppy – so one needs to be able to store its energy.

I have had solar panels on my house since 2012 and have driven electric cars since 2015. I am very happy with the arrangement.

A relatively new company in Finland had caught my attention not too long ago who have a system to store energy in sand. They are called Polar Night Energy:

https://polarnightenergy.fi/technology

People interested in these matters (as I have been for decades) should look into this if they haven’t seen it already. There are interesting videos about this out their on the interwebs.

The math problem seems pretty trivial to me unless I’ve missed something about it.

The range of the addition of 2 numbers from the set [n, 2n] is [n+1, 4n-1]

The number of perfect squares in this [n+1, 4n-1] range is OBVIOUSLY greater than 2^2 = 4. So one of the piles contains at least one perfect square in the addition of 2 of its members.

The number of perfect squares in [n+1, 4n-1] would be floor(sqrt(4n-1)) – ceil(sqrt(n+1)) – which is something like 10 when n = 100.

I wrote that range wrong. It is [2n+1, 4n -1]. We’re starting at n – I was thinking starting at zero.

Number of perfect squares for n = 100 is then about 5 – not 10.

But 5 is greater than 4 as well.

I might have to think it through a bit more; but that’s the gist.

I brought up 3 separate matters in my post.

Solar is the most cost-efficient.

It is impractical for the foreseeable future to think that everyone will be their own energy source. Of course, no one will ever be one’s one SMR administrator – so I think you were talking about 2 different things as well.

Nuclear waste handling makes nuclear prohibitively expensive. That will never not be the case. You can forget about SMR.

Solar farms is the winner today and should remain so for the foreseeabe future.

Another interesting tidbit I learned relatively recently: Nio EVs in China have their batteries swapped at service stations for a ridiculously low price. It beats the pricing of fast chargers – and is much quicker.

I probably should have commented about the main gist of the article. I don’t see gasifiers (that’s what she’s talking about here – gasifying solid fuel like hemp) as a better solution than the current situation. I myself don’t really care about “greenhouse gasses” or whatever. That talk is and always has been largely a crock. Gasified fuel is lower energy density than current fuels. I’d choose the current situation over it any day of the week. It’s another thing to throw into the mix – but it has always been hard to think of why one would choose it over alternatives. The only reason people do it is when they don’t have access to better fuels – or wish to be self-sufficient on that front (such as Germany early last century). It is simply more trouble than it is worth for the way we use high energy density liquid fuels. I (and anyone) would much rather have a gas tank or a battery pack on a vehicle rather than a bulky gasifier (which is toxically dangerous – a gasifier’s output is mostly carbon monoxide).

You should have read my post – 2 posts up from yours.

I’m intrigued by Polar Night Energy’s method of storing heat in sand:

https://polarnightenergy.fi/technology

Looks very interesting. It’s pretty much a cheap plug and play for cities with “district heating”.

Sand is easier to deal with than water – water boils off at 100C – can hold 10x the heat.

The pile that has 112 does not necessarily also have 113.

You need to show that one of the 2 piles would always have 2 numbers whose sum is a perfect square on any shuffle.

And the range is the more general [n, 2n] – with n >= 100. Perfect squares become more sparse as n increases. You need to show the point holds for any n >= 100.

I did that in my post but need to explain it better (the 2^2 = 4 bit in my post)

Actually I wasn’t thinking that tediously about it. I had confused in my mind the [n, 2n] that we are dealing with with [0, n] while thinking about shifts in the squares to give a square in addition. And so the logic in my mind was incorrect.

Since n >= 100, the number of perfect squares in [n, 2n] >= 5

So there are at least 3 perfect squares in any cutting of the deck in half.

i.e. I was thinking about the highest perfect square shifted down (b^2 – x) minus the lowest perfect square shifted up (a^2 + y).

The addition of these two would be b^2 – (y-x) + a^2.

And then I confused in my mind [a, b] with the original [n, 2n] (thinking [a, b] to be [o, n] inclusive – but of course it is not)

So a clusterfuck of thinking on my part. But something like this might give an elegant solution – which eludes me, actually!

Anyone recommending a hybrid over a BEV is recommending the worst of both worlds.

I’ve had BEVs for over 6 years – currently have a Chevy Bolt (with a “B”). There’s no need for any hybrid for me (or anyone).

I bought it new for $26k – so it wasn’t particularly expensive. I get about 300 miles with its 60 kWh battery pack – which is fine for me and most people. All charging to date has been at home from my L2 charger. And I live in an area (MD) which has plenty of fast chargers within a 350 mile radius. So I could drive anywhere without the need for an ICE – which requires much more service than a BEV (which requires none at all for its engine).

There’s no need for any hybrid for me or anyone. 300 miles range is well within the needs of most people. Hybrids are an unnecessary complication. If someone has a need for long distance travel he can rent an ICE vehicle for that travel.

The Chevy Volt was a ridiculous idea.

It would only be 1/2 if he had stated which one was heads (the first or the second). Then there is only 2 possibilities for the other. But he said both coin flips were done and one was heads. That knocks out TT from the possibilities and HH is one of the 3 remaining. Therefore 1/3 probability.

This is the “Boy or Girl paradox”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

I think you DID prove it generally with this.

Call the largest even perfect square in [2n+1, 4n-1] Z.

Choose a,b,c such that:

2c = Z*Z + Y*Y – X*X
2b = Z*Z – Y*Y + X*X
2a = -Z*Z + Y*Y + X*X

Then

2(a+b) = X*X
2(a+c) = Y*Y
2(b+c) = Z*Z

where Y = Z-2 and X = Z-4.

Sure, and as I said before I call our Mexican cleaning lady Kleenx. And when government actually works, it is not ….”really, really bad.”

The spacecraft’s target asteroid, a roughly 525-foot piece of rock known as Dimorphos, is in no danger of hitting Earth

Until some bozo with a meteorite gun deflects it.

Is she wearing wax teeth in that profile pic?

I went to the mirror to see if I could show so much gum – without success.